MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979215987 · doi:10.1115/1.4002162

Comparison of Neutron Diffraction Measurements of Residual Stress of Steel Butt Welds With Current Fitness-for-Purpose Assessments

2010· article· en· W1979215987 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Paradowska, John W Price, T. R. Finlayson, R. B. Rogge, Ronald L. Donaberger, Raafat N Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersAustralian Research CouncilMonash UniversityAustralian Institute of Nuclear Science and EngineeringAustralian GovernmentAustralian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
KeywordsResidual stressMaterials scienceWeldingNeutron diffractionCarbon steelButt weldingUltimate tensile strengthMetallurgyComposite materialDiffractionCorrosionOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research, the neutron diffraction technique was used to investigate the residual stress distributions in constrained carbon steel welds. Two full penetration welds were studied using (a) the stringer bead and (b) the temper bead weld techniques in 25 mm thick plate. The welds were not post-weld heat treated. The focus of the measurements is on the values of the subsurface and through-thickness strain/stress variation near the middle of the weld and the toe. The experimental results showed that both processes had high residual stresses particularly through the thickness. The measurements were compared with current fitness-for-purpose approaches, such as BS7910 and R6. It was found that the residual stress distribution in the temper bead welded specimen was not as favorable as suspected and post-weld heat treatment should be recommended to reduce residual tensile stresses in this type of steel welds.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207